How many judgments cite CIT v. Ramakrishnan?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ramakrishnan (363 ITR 59), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ramakrishnan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 54, Section 54F.

CIT v. Ramakrishnan

363 ITR 59High Court2014#5150 most cited

What is CIT v. Ramakrishnan authority for?

For the purpose of computing the holding period for capital gains tax, the relevant date for determining the acquisition of property is the date of allotment, not the date of registration of the conveyance deed.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ramakrishnan · section 54 · section 54F · capital gains · holding period · date of allotment · conveyance deed · long term capital gain · short term capital gain · acquisition date

Also reported as

48 Taxmann.com 55

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54 Section 54F

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)short term capital gain long term capital gain transfer business section 143(3)total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramakrishnan

Shri Anil Murarilal Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 18(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4715/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Murarilal Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward-18(1)(1) 703, Purna Worli Chsl Mumbai. Vs. Pochkhanwala Road, Worli Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaapa 9215 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Murarilal Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward-18(1)(1) 703, Purna Worli CHSL Mumbai. Vs. Pochkhanwala Road, Worli Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AAAPA 9215 B Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Assessee by : Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR Revenue by : 13/02/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order…

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 645/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

…umbai "D" Bench in the case of ITO 30(2)(3) v/s. Smt. Meeta Bhavesh Ganatra, ITA No. 5149/Mum/2017. (419 Taxpundit261) 4) Honourable High Court, New Delhi in the case of CIT. Xvi vis. K. Ramakrihnan, ITA No. 114 of 2014 & CMA No. 4959 of 214 (2014-LL-0318 42, 363 ITR 59) 4) Your appellant hereby produces several judgments to support the claim of your appellant of allowing the addition made regarding nature of capital gain. a) The decision pronounced by Bombay High Court in the case Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai V/s. Vembu Vaidyanathan - Income Tax Appeal No.1459 of 2016 [2019-LL-0122-55] In the given judg…

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)

…behest of the assessee only. This is a valuable right and hence, a "property". The ld. AR has relied upon following decisions, synopsis of which was filed during the course of hearing: a. Sanjeev Lal vs CIT (2014) 105 DTR (SC) 305 b CIT vs. Ramkrishnan (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 55 (Delhi) c. CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd 122 ITR 594 (Bom) d. Simka Hotels and Resorts vs DCIT (2013) 85 DTR 249 (Delhi) 23. She stated that further payment and registration of the sale deed is merely a follow up action and does not create a fresh right in the property. It merely formalises the right which is already created. She vehemently ar…

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.CIT-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. PAN: ADSPB2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Revenue by : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22nd March, 2021 of the PCIT, Delhi-12, passed u/s 263 of the…

Sandeep Tewari, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4964/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4964/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2010-11] Shri Sandeep Tiwari Vs. The I.T.O C -22, Dronacharya Apartments Ward - 36(4) Mayur Vihar, Phase – 1, Delhi New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAVPT 1015 D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv Department By : Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 15.12.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is p…

Govind Singh Grewal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3232/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Govind Singh Grewal, Vs Ito, 8-A, Panchsheel Marg, Ward-61(1), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aghpg7795D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 54

…f the Tribunal in the case of Ranjana Bammi vs. ACIT, reported in 2017 (8) TMI 338, he submitted that the Tribunal, relying on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramakrishna, reported in 363 ITR 59, held that in order to determine the taxability of capital gain arising from sale of property, it is the date of allotment of property which is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul…

ITO ACIT 31(2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Jayanti S Chakraborty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2651/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleacit – 31(2) V. Smt Jayati S. Chakraborty Room No. 107, C-13, 1St Floor 1803/1804, Oberai Woods Pratyakshakar Bhavan Mohan Gokhale Road Bandra Kurla Complex Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Pan: Aaopc5980B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…to those mentioned in para 2 of Board's Circular No. 471, dated 15-10-1986, such cases may also be treated as cases of construction for the purposes of sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act. 14. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ramakrishnan [2014] 363 ITR 59 (Del.) held that in order to determine taxability of capital gain arising from sale of property, it is date of allotment of property which is relevant for purpose of computing holding period and not date of registration of conveyance deed. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Madhu Kaul vs. CIT(supra) held that where a flat was allotted to a…

ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1964/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Deepali Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ear 2006 – 2007 ‗such asset‖, which has been sold by the assessee was ‗held‘ by the assessee or not. 14. Learned authorised representative submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 363 ITR 59 wherein it has been held that in order to determine the taxability of the capital gain arising from sale of property it is the date of allotment of property which is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. He further relied upon the plethora of decisions stating that assessee‘s clai…

Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1532/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Deepali Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

Triple Ess Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-27, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR and Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…ing case laws :- a. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT, Ludhiana (2012) 344 ITR 501 b. Ms. Madhu Kaul v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54 c. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. K. Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59 d. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Jitendra Mohan (2007) 165 Taxman 524 (Delhi) e. Hon’ble Madra High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. R. Jeyashankar (2015) 373 ITR 120 (Madras) f. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Anita D. Kanjani v. ACIT (2017) 163 ITD 451 g. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. D…

Jayati S. Chakraborty, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7122/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjayati S Chakraborty Acit - 31(2) 1803/1804, B-Wing, Oberoi C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Woods, Mohan Gokhale Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400063. Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaopc5980B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Aarati Visanji With Sh. Salin R. Divatia-(Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Aarati Visanji with Sh. Salin R. Divatia-(AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54

Ramesh A Radhakrishnan, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 35(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1244/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Hiro Rai, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…er hand. Further, post Jaimal K.Shah, we find that various higher judicial authorities, in catena of judgment, taken a view favorable to the assessee. Few of which are listed below:- 1. Madhu Kaul Vs CIT (P & H HC) 363 ITR 54 2. CIT Vs Ramakrishnan (Delhi HC) 363 ITR 59 3. CIT Vs S R Jeyashankar (Madras HC) 373 ITR 120 5.7 Viewed from any angle, we are unable to find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion of Ld. first appellate authority that the ITA.No.1244/Mum/2017 Ramesh A.Radhakrishnan Assessment Year- 2012-13 capital gains earned were Short Term in nature and therefore, we reverse the same. The resultan…

ACIT - 21(1), Mumbai vs. Anoop Saxena, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013 is dismissed

ITA 5101/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhacit Circ-21 Shri Anup Saxena Room No. 116, 1St Floor, 507, Shah & Nahar Indl Estate, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400018. Pan: Afops0804H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : R. Kavitha (Dr) Respondent By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Advocate) Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: R. Kavitha (DR)For Respondent: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Advocate)

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 45Section 54Section 54(1)(i)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT Circ-21 Shri Anup Saxena Room No. 116, 1st Floor, 507, Shah and Nahar Indl Estate, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400018. PAN: AFOPS0804H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : R. Kavitha (DR) Respondent by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Advocate) Date of Hearing : 30.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by Revenue under Section 253 of I…

ITO - 21(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mridula Anoop Saxena, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 5102/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Ito – 21(2)(3), Smt. Mridula Anoop Saxena, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, 1602-B, Lokhandwala Residency, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Ncy Towers Chs Ltd., Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Manjrekar Lane, Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aaqps0855F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 133Section 143Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The ITO – 21(2)(3), Smt. Mridula Anoop Saxena, Room No. 105, 1st Floor, 1602-B, Lokhandwala Residency, Piramal Chambers, Parel, NCY Towers CHS Ltd., Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Manjrekar Lane, Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400018 PAN: AAQPS0855F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR) Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR) Date of Hearing: 25/05/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 14/08/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed…

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Shashi Bhushan Roy, Mumbai

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

ITA 3204/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

For Respondent: Shri RAM Tiwari (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(a)Section 234BSection 254(1)

…ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHAHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat ROOM No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha CHS Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 PAN:AAAPR 7703 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat DCIT 5(3)(1), No.11, Rambha CHS Ltd, ROOM No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, Nepean Sea Road, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Mumbai 400020 PAN:AAAPR 7703 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Shivram Sen…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Michelle N. Sanghvi, Mumbai

ITA 3973/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumaracit, Circle - 21(2) Shri Michelle N. Sanghvi Room No. 115, 1St Floor 402, Kewal Indl. Estate Piramal Chambers Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Parel, Mumbai 400012 Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 Pan – Arsps1466M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi NingeshenFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Sagar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ACIT, Circle - 21(2) Shri Michelle N. Sanghvi Room No. 115, 1st Floor 402, Kewal Indl. Estate Piramal Chambers Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Parel, Mumbai 400012 Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 PAN – ARSPS1466M Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri M.C. Omi Ningeshen Respondent by: Shri P.P. Sagar Date of Hearing: 03.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 13.02.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 17.…

ITO 22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Liladhar R. Tandel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

ITA 959/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…ate of acquisition as 29/08/2003 and 08/09/2003. Period of holding should be computed from the date of allotment of the property as held in the following judicial pronouncements. 1. Madhu Kaul v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H HC) 2. CIT v. K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59 (Del HC) 3. CIT v. S R Jeyashankar (2015) 373 ITR120 9Mad HC) 4. CIT v. A Suresh Rao (2014) 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar HC) 5. Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT (2012) 344 ITR 501 (P&H_HC) 6. CIT v. Jitendra Mohan (2007) 165 Taxman 524 (Del HC) 7. CIT v. Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR52 (Guj HC) 8. CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj) 18 Liladhar…

Rakesh Kumar Goel, Muzaffarnagar vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 2246/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR

Section 50CSection 54F

…ssessee from 29.06.2009, the date of executing the conveyance deed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments :- (i) CIT vs. R.L. Sood – 245 ITR 727 (Delhi) (ii) CIT vs. S.R. Jeyashanker – 373 ITR 120 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. K. Ramakrishan – 363 ITR 59 (Delhi) (iv) Mrs. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT, Chandigarh – (2014) 43 taxmann.com 417 (P&H) 7 ITA No.2246/Del./2015 12. Not only this, Circular No.471 dated 15.10.1986 is also categoric enough to explain the controversy at hand that in such like cases, allottee gets title of the property on the date of issuance of the allotment letter and the payment of…

Seeta Prabhu, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.D.Jainसर्वश्री ए.डी. जैन, न्याययक सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1020/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08) बनाम/ Mrs.Seeta Prabhu, Income Tax Officer-26(1)4, C/O Mohanlal Jain & Co., Smt.K.G.Mittal Ayurvedik Vs. Chartered Accounts Firm, Hospital Building, 10, Chartered House, Charni Road, Ground Floor, Dr.C H Street, Mumbai-400002 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 54F

…the lower authorities. Hence, the assessing authority was directed to adopt the cost of acquisition as aforesaid and recompute the long-term capital gains taxable in the hands of the assessee accordingly. [Para 9] In the case of CIT V/s K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59(Del), the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has held as under : “3. In this case, the assessee acquired possession of the plot on December 12, 2005, and sold through a registered sale deed dated January 9, 2008. This court is of the opinion that having regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the assessee had acquired the beneficial interest to the…

Sneha Bimal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5489/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263

…(P&H); Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT -344 ITR 501 (P&H); c) d) CIT V/s Ved Parkash And Sons (Huf) (1994) 207 ITR 148 P H, ; e) ACIT V/s Sanjay Kumath (2014) 63 SOT 90 (Indore) f) Charanbir Singh Jolly V/s ITO (2006) 5 SOT 89 (MUM) g) CIT V/s K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59(Del) 7 5489/Mum/2015 7. The lf. AR finally prayed that since the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in view of the facts that the AO has rightly allowed the benefit of indexation to the assessee by taking the date of letter of intent on which the token payment were made the as the date of ac…